smike073

9/27/13

I thought you weren't interested in celebrity babies?

9/27/13

This law does nothing to prevent anyone taking pictures of anyone in public - it only addresses issues of harassment while taking photos.

9/27/13

The lawsuit states that the image was used on her website as well. Additionally, facebook recently updated its terms of use to state that content posted to the site may be used in connection with commercial or advertising content (so, yes - someone is receiving financial gain from it). Not to mention, her facebook…

9/27/13

Sorry for my wording - I was actually speaking in agreement with you (the first line meant to add supporting info to your point). I agree on the rest of your reply to my comment as well.

9/27/13

..along with people who run blogs (websites, magazines, etc) like Jezebel (and those who read / support such things) that post photos of celebrities' children and provide the market for these photos? Jezebel and all of its readers perpetuate the culture that writes the paychecks to these people, thus supporting their…

9/27/13

The paparazzi (and anyone else) would still be able to legally take photos - they just can't harass them (without the expectation of possible legal action).

9/27/13

This law has nothing to do with the taking of photographs, it only deals with the conduct of someone while taking photos, i.e. harassing their subjects. Since harassment laws already exist, I don't really even see what this law does that is new.

9/27/13

Actually, those laws (regarding using someone's likeness in ads, etc.) do apply to everyone. Of course, that does not mean it doesn't happen - but just because it happens doesn't mean it's legal.

9/27/13

...and then it gets posted on Jezebel.

9/27/13

Your click on that article just served as a signature on some child-harassing paparazzo's paycheck. It's funny when people publicly pretend to be supportive of something to make themselves look and feel good when in reality they are supporting the exact opposite.

9/27/13

This has nothing at all to do with the taking of photos of anyone, it concerns the behavior of photographers while taking photos. And since harassment laws already exist, this law doesn't really seem to do anything except appease the entitled by making them think there's a new law tailored specifically towards them.

9/27/13

You still contribute to the number of hits that the site gets (akin to ratings in the TV industry), so you are contributing to the harassment of celebrities and their children by paparazzi. Without readership in these types of blogs, sites and magazines, paparazzi would not exist. You keep them employed, and are their…

9/27/13

Right - because this blog never posts stories with photos of celebrities' children.

9/27/13

You do realize that blogs, sites, and magazines such as Jezebel are the reason paparazzi exist, don't you? If you have a problem with the way paparazzi treat these people and their children (and it sounds like you do), you should boycott the use of their images altogether. But then again, you'd be out of a job...

9/27/13

...says the reader of the celebrity gossip blog...

9/27/13

I don't think this law actually accomplishes anything new; I believe all individuals are protected from harassment by law, so it seems to me this is simply a way to appease the demands of the entitled without really doing or changing anything...

9/27/13

I don't think this law actually accomplishes anything new. Harassment is already illegal, I believe - so I think it attempts to address it within the context of taking photos in public simply to draw attention to that specific context. The list of included examples seems to be just that; examples - but I don't think…

9/27/13

"...since the paparazzi often travel in packs, hitting popular spots, hanging outside shopping centers like The Grove or the Hollywood pumpkin patch, can you call the cops on all of them? " The law does not prohibit lying in wait, so unless the paparazzi are engaging in harassing conduct (or doing something else…